D70 and 24-120 vr vs. 18-70

[abbilder]

Hello!

 

has anybody experience how the 24-120 VR performs compared to the 18-

70. I am satiesfied with the 18-70 by its quality, but I want a more

tele lens. The 24-120 would give me the AFS my 80-200 does not have

and it has the range of about 200 mm. So this might be a perfect

lens for me - but does how does it perform.

 

I know that both lenses cover a similar wide angle area. Neverless,

one day I will get the digital version of my beloved 20mms and then,

a third lens will cover the wide angle.

 

Thanks,

Axel

[tom_pavone]

You will be better served by the 24-120, the VR and AFS are great tools and you can feel the difference between a Nikon pro level lens and a consuler lens. BTW, I love my 12-24 AFS, it will do a good job of replacing your 20mm and then some.

[abbilder]

Hello Tom!

 

Is the 24-120 realy build as a pro-level lens?

The 18-70 definately is not, but I will compare the 24-120 to my 20-35 or the 80-200.

 

I am a little bit disappointed by the AF-speed of the D70 with Non-AFS-lenses.

 

By, Axel

[Carl Stone]

"I am a little bit disappointed by the AF-speed of the D70 with Non-AFS-lenses."

 

Unless one is shooting strictly stills, no motion in the image, nearly everyone is

disappointed with the AF speed of the D70 with ANY lens. AFS is better, but not good.

 

 

As for the 18-70 and 24-120 covering the same area, that is not so. When switching

from the 18mm end to the 24mm end you lose 33% of the width capabilities of the

18mm end of the

lens, and that is more than just significant. At the long end the 18-70 gives the angle

of view of 105mm, while thje 24-120 shows like a 180mm. Reviews of each lens

suggest that the 18-70 is sharper, and I've yet to see credible review of the 24-120

VR that praises the lens for quality optics. You are comparing apples and oranges in

other ways also. For instance the 24-120 VR is a 5X lens, and has the resultant

distortion that accompanies a lens of that design. I'm not knocking the 24-120 VR,

but it just doesn't compete with the 18-70. The 24-120 VR is for people that want to

carry one lens, yet buy an SLR that was designed for lenses to be switched to the

most appropriate for the desired image. It's a compromise, and that's the kindest

thing I can say about it. The serious zooms are of fixed aperture and are 2X to 2.5X,

such as 17-35mm and the 80-200mm f/2.8 zooms. If you don't want to spend the

money for those high dollar zooms, then primes are less expensive, and even better

in quality.

[michael s.]

Axel - No, I wouldn't think of the 24 - 120 VR as a "pro-level" lens. Not even close.

 

Not sure what Carl means by a "credible review," but in the current edition of the consumer magazine "Popular Photography and Imaging," the 24 - 120 did pretty well. My perusal of the review of various i.s. products discussed in that issue suggests that the Nikkor lens (in the opinion of the reviewers at that magazine) held its own in comparison to the Canon 28 - 135mm IS USM lens, which is commonly regarded as a pretty darn good consumer level zoom lens. When I say "held its own" I'm referring -- or more accurately, the magazine was referring -- both to image quality and to the i.s./v.r. benefits.

 

Keep in mind that if you're accustomed to the build quality of an 80 - 200 f/2.8 fixed aperture Nikkor lens, you will not find it in the 24 - 120 VR lens. But the 24 - 120 is much lighter in weight.

 

By the way, while you didn't say which Nikon body you've used (or are now using) with your 80 - 200mm lens, be aware that the new 24 - 120mm VR is a Nikkor "G" lens -- it has no aperture ring.

 

That may or may not be a factor for you.

 

Good luck.

[Carl Stone]

" Not sure what Carl means by a "credible review," but in the current edition of the

consumer magazine "Popular Photography and Imaging," the 24 - 120 did pretty

well."

 

To it clearer, I mean reviews other than those sponsored by equipment

manufacturers, like Popular Photography and Imaging reviews. I put more stock in the

likes of Bjørn Rørslett <http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html>, Thom Hogan

<http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm>, etc., and they aren't thrilled with this

lens. To be completely fair, I haven't seen the Pop Photo review, but then I'm not

likely to, as I don't read that magazine. I'm not saying that the 24-120 VR is a bad

lens, I AM saying that there are better Nikon lenses, and in the case of the kit lens, it

is a higher rated lens, and for less money. You don't get VR with the kit lens, but I'd

choose it over the 24-120 anyway.

[michael s.]

>>> ... I mean reviews other than those sponsored by equipment manufacturers ... >>>

 

Fair enough, and certainly not an unreasonable stance.

[raymond_wong7]

I have both lenses and IMHO the 24-120 VR performs exceptionally well between 70-120mm. On the wide side however the images are soft and show some distortion. I use the lense mainly for people shots so the distortion is not really noticeable. If I compare the 24-120VR to my 70-200 2.8 VR the quality at 120 is very similar.

 

Therefore if you are buying the lense to use at the 24mm end I would say the kit lense is just as good if not better.